“Conceptions of the Muslim as Enemy — Conceptions of the Jew as Enemy.” This was the title of a conference held on December 8 at Berlin’s Center for Research on Anti-Semitism. The stated aim of the conference was to employ the template of anti-Semitism in order to analyze an allegedly new form of kindred prejudice: “Islamophobia.”

The announcement of the conference sparked a raging controversy in Germany. It has been all the more intense due to the fact that the Berlin-based center is the most well-known and influential research institution of its kind in Germany and, arguably, in all of Europe. The Berlin center played a leading role, for example, in the development of the European Union’s much-cited “working definition” of anti-Semitism. Critics like journalist and author Henryk Broder and the political scientist Matthias Küntzel have charged the Berlin center with, in effect, abusing its prestige in order to relativize anti-Semitism and obscure the real threat of Islamic extremism.

The fact that Küntzel published some of his criticisms in English in the Wall Street Journal undoubtedly placed the Berlin center and its director Wolfgang Benz under greater pressure to respond. Küntzel’s criticisms in the WSJ were, however, very much hedged with politically-correct obbligatos. (For example: “It is certainly necessary to oppose the demonization of Muslims and discrimination against them, which often have racist motivations. The Berlin center, whose research covers prejudices in general, is right to address this issue.”)

The actual German debate has been much more of a gloves-off affair. Thus, for example, Broder observed:

Of course, you can compare everything and anything. You can compare Cologne to a city, the [German media prize] the Bambi with the Oscar, a currywurst with a delicacy, or even academic “Anti-Semitism experts” with bean-counters. But to mention anti-Semitism in the same breath as Islamophobia is as off-base as talk of “chicken concentration camps” to refer to ordinary chicken farms.

(The expression “chicken concentration camps” [Hühner-KZs] is in fact commonly employed by German “animal rights” activists.)

“There are hundreds of phobias,” Broder continued, challenging the pertinence of the comparison:

These include such highly original ones as “alliumphobia” — the fear of garlic; “babushkaphobia” — women’s fears or aversion vis-à-vis their grandmothers; “eurotophobia” — the fear of female genitalia; and “glucodermaphobia” — fear of the film that forms on warm milk when it is left standing for too long. Persons who suffer from phobias avoid what they fear. They don’t take the elevator, don’t go out onto public spaces, and steer clear of reptiles. An anti-Semite, on the other hand, feels compelled to seek contact with the object of his aversion. Anti-Semitism is not a phobia, but rather a kind of psychotic obsession. … The director of a Center for Research on Anti-Semitism ought to know that.

Reacting to the criticisms in a variety of venues, Benz insisted that as “prejudice researchers” it is normal that the members of the Berlin center would turn their attention to other forms of prejudice like “Islamophobia.” This raises the obvious question why the center is called precisely the “Center for Research on Anti-Semitism” and not rather the “Center for Research on Prejudice in General.” (Asked during a panel discussion that closed the conference [German audio available here] whether it would not in fact be more sensible henceforth to employ something like the latter name, Benz said that he was “energetically” opposed to such a suggestion. Other than to note that anti-Semitism was part of the Berlin center’s “brand name,” however, he did not explain why.)

But Benz’s repeated allusions to his calling as “prejudice researcher” amount to transparent alibi-making. As is obvious from the context of the Berlin center’s founding in Germany, its original focus on anti-Semitism was a function of the specificities of German history and the specific responsibility of Germany for the most extreme manifestation of anti-Semitism that the world has ever known: the Holocaust. To speak of mere “prejudice” in connection with the latter already represents a remarkable trivialization. The extension of the Berlin center’s research activities to cover other groups that were subject to persecution on racial grounds by Nazi Germany makes perfect sense in this connection. This is most obviously the case with respect to Sinti and Roma (“Gypsies”), hundreds of thousands of whom died in Nazi concentration camps during WWII. The extension to Muslims, however, makes no sense whatsoever. As has long been known and as recent academic research has documented in great detail, far from being the object of Nazi persecution, Muslims were courted by the Nazis as natural allies in a supposedly common struggle against “Jewish domination” and Anglo-American “imperialism.” (On the specific example of the Mufti of Jerusalem, see my recent book review “The Mufti and the Holocaust”.)

The pretense that the Berlin center decided to extend its attentions to “Islamophobia” simply “because it was there” is immediately belied, moreover, by even just a cursory perusal of the conference materials. “Since September 11, 2001, resentments against Islam are on the rise,” the conference announcement reads. “The parallels [between Anti-Semitism and contemporary "Islamophobia"] are unmistakable. Using stereotypes and constructions that form part of the habitual tool-kit of anti-Semitism, an anti-Muslim mood is being created. These include conspiracy fantasies and supposed religious principles and commandments. …” The premise of the entire exercise is thus that there is a strong substantive resemblance between anti-Semitism and “Islamophobia” that goes beyond their mere commonality as “prejudices.” The clear suggestion is that “Islamophobia” is, in effect, nothing less than the new form of anti-Semitism.

Benz would dismiss the charge that he and his center had “equated” anti-Semitism and “Islamophobia” as “total nonsense” and say that it was based on a “misunderstanding.” If so, Benz himself is largely responsible for the “misunderstanding.” As Matthias Küntzel has pointed out, in the preface to the recently published 2008 edition of the center’s yearbook, Benz writes “The fury of the new Islamophobes is equivalent to [gleicht] the old rage of the anti-Semites against Jews.” The German verb used by Benz is gleichen, which literally means “is equivalent to” or “is the same as.” If one wanted to express mere superficial similarity, there are other terms available in German (for instance, ähneln). The German word for “equation” or establishing an equivalence — what Benz insisted he did not do — is Gleich-setzung, literally “presenting as equivalent” or “presenting as the same,” which is precisely and literally what Benz did.

Asked to elaborate during the panel discussion on the supposed “parallels” between contemporary “Islamophobia” and traditional anti-Semitism, Benz pointed, for instance, to the notion that Islam “requires Muslims to make war against non-believers.” The problem with this comparison, of course, is that it is not, first or foremost, Islamophobes who have disseminated such a notion, but rather Islamists. Whether or not the Islamist interpretation of the Quran is the correct one is beside the point. Numerous Muslims around the world have been convinced that it is correct and have accordingly translated said “notion” into deadly real practice. The September 11 attacks, the Bali bombings, the Madrid bombings, the London bombings, the 11/26 Mumbai attacks, and innumerable other Islamist-inspired terror attacks in the last seven years make this abundantly obvious. To leave all of this out of account — or to treat September 11, 2001 as just some date that for no apparent reason happens to mark the rise of anti-Islamic “resentments” — is to coquette with negationism vis-à-vis Islamic extremist violence and the tens of thousands of victims it has claimed.

It is, above all, this remarkable indifference to the reality of Islamic extremism that renders the Berlin center’s comparison of anti-Semitism and “Islamophobia” so outrageous. There was no “Jewish” 9/11, nor were there any Jewish Bali bombings or Mumbai attacks and so on. The basis of the eliminationist anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust was a myth of Jewish world conspiracy. Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups that attempt to establish their conception of Islamic rule by means of violence are no myth. (Or perhaps Wolfgang Benz and his fellow “prejudice researchers” believe they are?) The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the founding text of the myth of Jewish “world conspiracy,” was a forgery whose global influence (as the French historian Henri Rollin has shown) derived in no small measure from its conscious dissemination by agents of German propaganda. It was, moreover, alleged to be a “secret document” that had to be “discovered.” The fundamental texts of the Islamist movement — from Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones to Osama bin Laden’s “World Islamic Front Statement for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders” — are authentic and are widely and eagerly disseminated by Islamist organizations themselves. There is nothing “secretive” or conspiratorial about them.

Then again, perhaps this apparent indifference is in fact just an expression of empathy. As noted by Henryk Broder in his 2002 book No War, Nowhere [Kein Krieg, nirgends], in a panel discussion that took place merely two days after the September 11 attacks in 2001, Wolfgang Benz described the twin towers of the World Trade Center as “symbols of pride and wealth and arrogance.” And he continued: “To put up such buildings is the most extreme sort of arrogance, and vulnerability is thus built into them. And the attacks against these buildings — by way of these attacks, one can erase one’s own feelings of powerlessness and one’s own humiliations and transform them into the powerlessness and humiliation of one’s opponent.”

John Rosenthal writes on European politics and transatlantic security issues. You can follow his work at www.trans-int.com or on Facebook here.

Click here to view the 54 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

54 Comments, 54 Threads

1.
DavidN

Well this is a weird development. I’m always confused by the “My victimization was worse than your victimization” crowd. The arguments always seem forced, and of course one sort of prejudice never exactly mirrors another. The circumstances are always a bit different, the history changes some, something’s not exactly the same. In this instance, the Germans went after people of Jewish *heritage*, whereas modern Islamaphobes, instead, are obsessed with the religion. If you *were* a Muslim, but are now a Christian or follow some other faith, or no faith at all, you’re safe.

Not only that, but the one prejudice has led to pogroms and the Holocaust, which happened, no matter how many different goofballs try to obscure the facts. While Muslims, typically those of Middle Eastern extraction, have been the objects of some prejudice in modern society, to my knowledge nothing like a pogrom has occurred, never mind the Holocaust.

Good news for those Muslims, though. In our modern society, there’s often an attempt to ignore the scale of things. Hating someone is bad, whether you kill the person or not. So, disliking Muslims because you believe that the extremists among them are going to try and kill the rest of us, and much of the rest of the Muslim community won’t do anything about it, well that’s essentially the equivalent of being a camp guard at Auschwitz. It seems silly, but that’s reality.

When the Muslim holy book, the Qur’an commands its followers to kill those who do not follow its tenets (Infidels), there is much to fear from those who call themselves Muslims. There is no such command in the Torah nor is there ever such preaching in synagogue. I am 51 now; I have attended synagogue since I was 3.

The Qur’an states: “Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their numbers. Allah does not guide the wrongdoers” (5:51).

When those Muslims who call for death to America and to Jews scream loudly from soapboxes everywhere (protected by the 1st Amendment) while those who call themselves “moderate” Muslims are silent, there is much to fear from those who call themselves Muslims.

Islam is not only a religion but a social/political doctrine. It encompasses all of life, societal rules, death, and post-death. It governs every aspect of existence from birth to death and meeting Allah and receiving the gift of 72 virgins if one is so exalted as to have killed some Infidels and died in action.

I think the fuel for these debates is the possibility of bridging the gap between social acceptance of a definition, such as Islamophobia, and actually getting something into law. In the absence of first amendment rights, that possibility is a potent one.

Hence the irony, worth noticing, that a country such as Germany that uses the law to try to control its culture is actually more vulnerable to external manipulation, and to losing control of its culture.

Mr. Rosenthal, your statement that there was a controversy raging Germany is nothing less but ridiculous. In fact, there are some – at least hysterical – people like Kuentzel, Broder et al. who are leading their private war against Wolfgang Benz in the blogosphere. No newspaper and no magazine of importance is involved. Especially Kuentzel, who belongs to the leftwing extremists “Antideutsche Kommunisten” has an interest to denounce and defame well known scientists as Benz for political reasons. It’s a shame that Broder is supporting such a crook.

Perry at #2 is correct in every detail. I would like to add: Bat Ye’or wrote a book back in 2005, “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis” in which she described how the EU and the Arab League were engaging in a convergence of interests, in stages, that would result in a melding of the North African and Middle Eastern countries with Europe. The policies would include a demonization of Israel and the United States.

Europeans don’t want to talk about that. It’s just another example of how the spirit of Hitler lives on. Yes, never forget Der Fuhrer’s favorite guest, Hajj Amin al Husseini and their shared goal of wiping the Jews out. Hitler even allowed Himmler and al Husseini to raise an SS division (Handschar)to go around the Balkans and eliminate Jews and Catholics.

Europe harbors cowards, anti-Semites, and intellectuals who try these sleight of hand tricks such as the theme of that Berlin conference. Very clearly, you can see the Eurabian influence over this.

I am an Islamophobe. I read the Qur’an, some English translations of ahadith Bukhari and Muslim, and the career and deeds of Muhammad. I’ve read at least a dozen books since 9/11 about Islam and the history of jihad conquest. There is nothing wrong with being an Islamophobe. It isn’t a genocidal quest like the one that the Muslims have towards the Jews and Christians, where they call for us being either slaves (second class citizens under the Dhimma), reverts, or simply put to death.

I accuse the literate people and the intellectuals of Europe of two of the top Seven Deadly Sins: pride and sloth.

I don’t fear Muslims. I am angered by their beliefs and practices. There’s nothing irrational about a negative reaction to the violence that Muslims actually preach and commit. There is no imagination at play here.

Accepting the Orwellian word games (the ‘phobia’ suffix) is once again allowing the Left to frame the debate such that non-thinking people assume an informed opinion to be inherently bad and undesirable. Don’t be a sucker for that game.

Yes, RE, I understand your point and I was tempted to express that very same thought. But, there is nothing truly negative about a phobic reaction to Islam. To fear a violent, aggressive, and thieving religion of lies is a rational response. Anger is an appropriate response too.

Even paranoids have enemies don’t you know. In the context of the history of Islam, which is violent in the extreme, acknowledging Islam as the enemy of our civilization is not paranoia, merely common sense.

I actually prefer “anti-Islamite” because I’m not afraid of Islam, I actively hate it and for all the correct empirical reasons relating to its doctrines.

I hate what is hateful, which is the most perfectly normal response to a stimulus imaginable.

Guy Lusignan:

Mr. Rosenthal, your statement that there was a controversy raging Germany is nothing less but ridiculous. In fact, there are some – at least hysterical – people like Kuentzel, Broder et al. who are leading their private war against Wolfgang Benz in the blogosphere. No newspaper and no magazine of importance is involved. Especially Kuentzel, who belongs to the leftwing extremists “Antideutsche Kommunisten” has an interest to denounce and defame well known scientists as Benz for political reasons. It’s a shame that Broder is supporting such a crook.

You say not one substantive thing in this paragraph. It’s all argument from authority, guilt by association and unproven assumptions.

“Islamophobic” There is no such thing in existance in any manner. WHat is true is that a group of extreme religious zealots has an idea that theirs is the only religion and that all others should join them or die. Far as i am concerned and being of German heritag ALL Muslims should be deported out of the country and in fact all of Europe. Don’t the Europeans remember that they would be under strict Muslim domination if it were not for Charlemenge whom defeated the savage muslims long ago? Well my European friends the muslims haven’t changed a bit and now you have been dumb enough to let them live among you. Deprot them all before it is too late.

I don’t know what the problem of “Guy Lusignan” is and I somehow doubt his disdain of the blogosphere will be shared by many here. But contrary to what he apparently wants to make non-German-speaking readers believe, the controversy has also spread to the traditional press in Germany, starting with this December 4 article in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/594/450316/text/. The Sueddeutsche only happens to be the largest circulation broadsheet in the country. But perhaps that does not count as “important” for Guy. Der Tagesspiegel, a major Berlin daily, and the “alternative” tageszeiting have also devoted articles to the subject.

“Wolfgang Benz described the twin towers of the World Trade Center as “symbols of pride and wealth and arrogance.” And he continued: “To put up such buildings is the most extreme sort of arrogance, and vulnerability is thus built into them.”

I wonder if the price of real estate in lower Manhattan in the late 1960′s and the peculiar enamoration with grody Bauhaus architecture didn’t have SOME smidgeon of weight in the decision to erect the Twin Towers.

Naaaaah, it HAD to be arrogance. The architect, Minoru Yamasaki, was a typical gun-slingin’ Yankee cowboy trying to show the Islamist terrorists…of 1969-70, mind you…how much bigger his “johnson” was.

Heck…how much bigger his TWO “johnsons” were.

Back to Herr Benz the Learned:

“…And the attacks against these buildings — by way of these attacks, one can erase one’s own feelings of powerlessness and one’s own humiliations and transform them into the powerlessness and humiliation of one’s opponent.””

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression that Herr Benz the Scheisskopf might be onto something?

Certainly bin-Laden may be deficient in the “sheep-smile equipment” hidden under his dishdasha.

And perhaps Herr Benz’s own “FeldMarshall’s Baton” is more suited for a fire-team than for a “Kampfgruppe” as well.

Osama, Wolfie…fellas, it doesn’t make you BAD men, you know.
Some guys are just bigger…get the f*ck OVER it, wilya?

(This is what passes for scholarship in Germany? Yeesh! Like I want this kind of goober defining ANYTHING for me!)

Mike – I suspect that Muslims use the term “racist” because they know the power it has in Western cultures to shut down the opposition. If a Liberal is losing an argument with a Conservative his best defense is to accuse the Conservative of some kins of “ism”.

And everyone keep in mind Khadaffi/Quadaffi’s words from 2006:

“We have four million Muslims in Albania. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe – without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. Europe is in a predicament, and so is America. They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time, or else declare war on the Muslims.”

Europe is led by cowards and ignorant Leftists thoroughly brainwashed in political correctness. If Europe doesn’t halt Muslim immigration and start having some more children of their own then the 1400 year war Islam has been waging against us will be lost and the US will find itself facing a nuclear armed Muslim Europe in a few decades.

I suspect that among the many reasons Europe’s elite won’t halt Muslim immigration is oil extortion. The Muslim countries will cut off Europe’s oil supply if they refuse to be colonized by the Islamic world’s excess population.

I have no fear of Islam, but I do have an undying hatred of the heresy that is Islam and its doctrines. I pity those who are trapped by it, and I seek to testify to the Truth. As for those who willingly embrace it in all its Shame, let them perish in nuclear fire if that is what it takes to win this war.

As we all know talk is cheap. Taqqay is a practiced art by the terrorits to tell their victim what they want to hear to hide the terrorist true intent.

First and foremost this so-called SHARIA LAW has been deliberately “mislabeled’ as the ‘fairness doctrine” in the “hopes” that Americans will be too stupid to look or research any further than the title before blindly voting on it. In the hopes no one would “notice” that it means it’s punishible by death to anyone whom claims the muslim/islam/sharia law murders, rapes, terrorist activities are “bad”.

Should this SHARIA LAW come into effect it would mean all prisons would MANIDTORILY have to let go all the prisoners and terrorists and put them back out onto the street to commmit more criminal activities because the KORAN says Muslims are ‘SUPERIOR RACE” (KORAN uses the word superior about it) therefore, exempt from prosecution for any and all crimes against non-muslims because Non-muslims have no rights.

This would effectively “save-haven’ terrorism and render America useless to protect itself or anyone else.

In 2006 obama went to kenya with his fav cousin odenga claiming they were christians and campaigning to being SHARIA LAW into kenya. It would make it Impossible for terrorist to be tried anywhere in the world for their crimes because they would be shipped back to kenya and be safe-havened. When they lost the elections christians were massacred and burnt alive in churches.

Yet how many don’t know 2 days before elections there was press release of pre-planned blood bath here as well.

We put it to you—Does this sound like ‘brotherly’ love to you?

Does this sound like christianity to you??

talk is cheap!!!

All this bantor from these people claiming they are being treated so-called unfair??? in whose language??

These people are not looking for equality they are looking to “dominate” according to their own Koran while they run around attempting to bamboozle everyone by claiming they are somehow being misunderstood.

Let’s look at the Koran shall we?? The SHARIA LAW Koran says that Muslims are ‘superior” race and that non-muslims are ‘servants’ (yes you heard correctly the koran uses the word servant about it”. Muslims according to the Koran are to “rule”over (the koran uses the word rule about it) over the non-muslims.

According to the Koran the Muslims are “entitled” to all the land, money, homes, and possesions of the NON-muslim because the Non-muslims do not have any rights, they do not have any freedom and can be eliminated at whim.

The Koran also claims Muslims are “entitled”, and at a time “deemed” appropriate by the Muslims; Muslims are commanded to JIHAD to forcibly take away Non-muslims land, money, possessions and homes

The Koran says that the SHARIA LAW RELIGION cannot be separated from the law.

The Koran also states that the KORAN is the RULE OF LAW *(koran uses the word rule about it) therefore, any Nations charters, treaties, amendments, laws and constitions are not to be considered legitimate or enforcable over the KORAN.

Now, folks you know exactly “what is with” this whole SHARIA LAW thing attempting to gain foot hold into the banking industry.

If this sharia law gets into banking industry One day everyone will wake up to find they have no money, no home, no possessions, no freedom, and no rights and no homes.

Under Sharia Law, for no other reason than NON-MUSLIMS are NON-muslims they are required to pay a tax or be killed and it’s due and payable anytime the muslims demand it. So, that the muslims can live in the lifesyle they want to be accustomed to living in at the expense of NON-muslims–this is their version of spread the wealth. Incidentally happens to be a socialistic/marxist/facist/communist slogan used all thru history. Since SHARIA LAW is facist naturally they subscribe to it.

Yet, how many Americans still don’t know that this is all part of the SHARIA LAW package?

SHARIA LAW condones forced FEMALE MUTILATION. The women are considered possessions and are beaten and abused. This is clearly preditory behavior and needful to be addressed as such. No woman should ever have to suffer being treated that way. However, it would mean this practice would become commonplace in the US

The SHARIA LAW is a facist/socialist/communist/marxist subscribing group.

Under SHARIA LAW it is illegal to be any religion except muslim.

This is the just for ‘starters” section of the Koran as they attempt to cloak themselves as being misunderstood and bigotized.

The UN several days ago passed SHARIA LAW. We might as well face the fact that the UN doesn’t like us. It is no longer safe for an American to travel anywhere.

here is what the ACLU THINKS how stupid AMERICAN’S ARE SPELLED OUT BY NORMAN THOMAS ONE OF THE FOUNDER’S OF THE ACLU

quote American’s will never knowingly accept Socialism but under ‘liberalism’ accept every fragment of the Socialistic agenda; until one day they wake up in a Socialist nation and “wonder” how it all happened. by norman thomas one of the founders of the ACLU.

The arrogance; how if they ‘disguise” socialism under the brand name of “liberalism” that American’s would stupidly and blindly embrace it.

CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror funding case. It’s cofounder and board Chairman has said: “Islam ISN’T in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam.

what we need to investigate is how long the ACLU and DEMS think they can count on American’s being as “stupid” as the ACLU and DEMS think American’s are???

Whom was it whom said—-Tolerance only becomes wrong and EVIL when given and applied to criminals.

Whom was it whom said—All that’s needed is for tyranny to reign is for good men to do nothing.

Whom was it whom said–Those whom don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat history.

There’s an old American saying that says—Talk is cheap because your ACTIONS are speaking so LOUD we cannot hear what you are saying???

We put it to you WE THE PEOPLE—Is Society gotten so warped that it needs to be reminded of how these apply to our Society

1) Jews didn’t blow sky scrappers or rampaged through cities killing right and left. Neither had they a book commanding them to make war on infildels un til they submit and pay tribute. Phobia is irrational fear. There are very good reasons to fear islam so using this term and comparing them to antisemitism, who was much more a phobia, is a very bad taste.

2) As usal the “researchers” make it sound as a bad and illegitimate thing. Excuse me but the same as I am a rabid naziphobic and comunphobic I vindicate the right to be islamophobic, jewishophobic or christianphobic. Religions are just a special variety of ideology why should they be immuine from critic to their goals and actions? With that logic we should accept the Aztec cult.

3) Nazism was no ordinary antisemitism: it was racial instead of ideological and where they had totally free hands (ie when they were not forced to rely on proxies) they killed with equal glee both practicing Jews and converted ones even those whose conversion dated from a time where Hitler was just a failed painter in Vienna. They also killed new born babies. And there is more than one example of people who risked life and limb to save Jews despite being rabid antisemites.

So this text in siition to its useful idiot facet is a fine example of waht the French call “drowning the fish”: by comparing them to our reaction in front of a very real threat, a reaction who does not involve gassing babies, it tries to make the crimes of Nazism look less heinous.

anti-semitism and islamophobia are not exactly the same but that is not to say that there are no parallels.

There ARE conspiracy theories circulating about muslims which have similarities to the ‘jewish world domination’ theories and the protocols of the elders of zion.

No doubt the Rothschild family and others WERE very ambitious to build their influence in finance just as many businessmen want to expand their businesses (nothing wrong with that) but it becomes anti-semitism when the leap is made to accusing ALL jews of being involved in a secret plot to achieve this to the detriment of non-jews. Similarly, it’s one thing to oppose islamic extremism and terrorism, it’s another to make the leap to say that ALL muslims in the west are secretly trying to create bridgeheads to take over by stealth and that even if they profess views to the contrary they are liars who are engaged in sedition. This crosses the line into racial/religious conspiracy theory.

Of course muslims are not in the same vulnerable situation as jews have historically been, they are far more numerous and have their own states where they are the majority. This does not mean however that there should be ‘open season’ on muslims where any accusation or stereotype should just be allowed to go unchallenged.

“I have no fear of Islam, but I do have an undying hatred of the heresy that is Islam and its doctrines. I pity those who are trapped by it, and I seek to testify to the Truth. As for those who willingly embrace it in all its Shame, let them perish in nuclear fire if that is what it takes to win this war.”

When somebody wishes death upon hundreds of millions of men, women and children regardless of any personal guilt, regardless of opinions, regardless of personal politics simply because they belong to a religious group which he considers ‘heretical’, this crosses the line from legitimate criticism to medieval barbarism and the mentality of Hitler’s form of anti-semitism.

“There ARE conspiracy theories circulating about muslims which have similarities to the ‘jewish world domination’ theories ”

the honor killings happening frequently in your country, the everyday demands of the muslim community in regards to labour rights (special rights granted to them only), the forced marriages between cousins to increase the demographics are all “conspiracy theories”?

Islam has the very unfortunate situation of being an adolescent religion that is in conflict with the more “adult” religions of Christianity and Judaism.

If you look at any major religion, they follow very similar paths of development. Judaism began as a tribal religion that was very violent and that frequently came into conflict with other nation states and civilizations. As the leaders of the faith soon realized, they would have to civilize and “de-fang” their faith if it was to survive under the rule of a long procession of powerful Greek, Egyptian, Persian and Roman Empires. The faith adapted its fiery message, toning it down for a mainstream audience of farmers and merchants that had to live among many non-Jews.

The same went for Christianity. It began as a marginalized and persecuted faith in the Roman Empire, but as it gained momentum after its adoption by the Empire, it became an arm of the base of royal power in the Western World after the Roman Empire’s collapse, and began to exert its influence, often violently with the Crusades, Missionary armies and Inquisitions. During the Enlightenment, this zealotry and violence ebbed as the faith adapted to a more mainstream societal ideology that allowed for more variety in religious thought and placed more value on reason and law & order.

So, basically we are seeing the same violent adolescent lashing-out in some practitioners of Islam today that occurred in the Jewish and Christian faiths in previous eras. The major difference here is that Judaism and Christianity both had thousands of years to work out their violent “growing pains”, whereas Islam has been forced to play “catch up” in the last hundred or so as globalization of the economy has brought many competing ideas and ideologies to its doorstep.

The ancient Jews confronted competing ideas by killing the Sumerians, Babylonians, Hittities, etc. The Medieval Christians confronted competing ideas by kicking Jews and Muslims out of many places in Western Europe, killing and jailing non-believers in Inquisitions, and conducting Crusades to assert Christian dominance over Europe and West Asia.

So, now too are Muslims confronting competing ideas with violence. Unfortunately, the situation has changed drastically since the “wild years” of the Christians and Jews, because 1) The new world order is largely civilized and commerce-based, and therefore inherently despises the violent unrest caused by radical practitioners of Islam, and 2) The destructive weapons available to those violent practitioners are now more dangerous than ever.

So it’s important to understand that:
1. Islam is no more or less violent than any major world religion has been over the course of its respective history, however,
2. That does not excuse the behavior of violent fanatics.
3. Like firearms, Islam does not kill people; people kill people. It’s all in how you choose to practice. Therefore,
3. Western religious leaders need to stop viewing Islam as evil, and begin understanding it as a young, sometimes confused faith that is in need of guidance and counsel, and like any other young faith, is constantly in danger of being hijacked by violent nutcases who care little for the faith or its subjects.

“When somebody wishes death upon hundreds of millions of men, women and children regardless of any personal guilt, regardless of opinions, regardless of personal politics simply because they belong to a religious group which he considers ‘heretical’, this crosses the line from legitimate criticism to medieval barbarism and the mentality of Hitler’s form of anti-semitism.”

Well, jonesy, the problem is that millions of observant Muslims wish precisely that against any and everyone who will not become a “Slave of God” in keeping with their Koran.

So, if I prefer to nuke the folks who would nuke ME for my refusal to begin bobbing and weaving in Mecca’s direction 5x daily and giving up my deep-fried cured pork products, makes me of the same mentality as a Hilterian anti-semite, then so be it.
Brown’s not my best color, but it’ll look better than a white gelabiyyah and sandals, y’know?

Or is it JUST possible that your moral compass is as scrambled in it’s way as that dullard German fellow Benz’s with his wee pee-pee and his manifestly evident “Penis Envy” chip on his shoulder I quoted above?

(For the record, I don’t expect anyone else to convert to the True Faith and join the KofC and play Bingo Thursday nights. Some of my bestest friends are proud and happy to be ignorant savage pagans who worship rocks and lakes and heaps of bones…you know…Methodists)

Unlike Christianity, Buddhism and similar the order for violence against infidels is in the holy book itself along with the commandment to conquer the world. It is alo in the life of the man who is given as the sum of all virtues, the example to be imitated by all muslims and whose “prophetic life” was marked by killing (in war), murder ‘of opponents in peace time) along with rapes and pillages all while taking 20% of the spoils.

Saying like Steve P that Islam is violent just because it is in turmoil and adolescent is either pure stupidity or downright lies from a fellow traveller.

Also the Crusades came after several centuries of Muslim agrgession when christians decided that enough was enough and it was time to push back. About the conquistadores, Cortez companion Diaz del Castillo, says in his book about the conquest of Mexico “Only voluntary conversions are valid”. But Spaniard initial intentions of tolerancy shattered when confronted with cannibalism and a religion who practiced human sacrifices by the tens of thousands.

While we are it, Hinduism went also through a push-back phase after one hundred millions Hindus being killed by the invading Muslims

Susan, you bring nothing to the table but newspaper clippings from which you then make huge and illogical leaps of thought to come up with theories about global conquest, sedition etc

For instance in your previous post you mentioned that muslims engage in cousin marriage in order to boost their demographics, presumably so that they can take over the world.

This is clearly nonsense as a) cousin marriages are far more likely to produce children with genetic defects who will not then go on to breed so it is useless as a tactic for demographic domination, marriages to non-cousins would be far more effective and b) this is only a custom in some conservative and barely literate rural pakistani communities that has been transplanted to the west, it has nothing to do with religion as is clearly demonstrated by the fact that forced cousin marriages do not occur in most of the muslim world from Morocco to Malaysia.

It’s like saying that hamburger consumption is a key part of christian philosophy just because traditionally christian nations are where most hamburgers are consumed. A basic level of education would tell you that correlation is not the same as causation.

Whatever they want to call it; I don’t care how “politically incorrect” it is; Even if it’s considered paranoid, it’s a healthy paranoia to fear (respect your fear) of Islam and it’s creeping into our Democracy. It only has ONE ULTIMATE GOAL; That goal has to be defeated. “We the People” are tasked with this endeavor, and if “We the People” fail, it’s crystal clear what our demise shall be.
Use your liberties now, or kiss them goodbye.

Is jonesy55 legitimate or is he steve in disguise? Because he is telling the same bunch of platitudes I refuted.

So I hate to repeat myself but murder and warfare on infidels are not byproducts or accidents, in the way consumption of hamburgers in Christian countries. They are mandated by the Koran, and illustrated by the life of Muhammad that all Muslims are mandated to imitate. It is fortunate that may Muslims are bad Muslims, just as there were bad Nazis who didn’t follow their “holy book” and helped Jews (yes there were some). But violence, murder and warfare are as consubstantial to the ideology called Islam as they were to the ideology called Nazism. And I can give you as many examples as neeeded from the Koran and from the life of the man whose name Muslims are not supposed to utter withot adding “Peace and Blessings upon him”.

JFM, all religious texts are interpreted and reinterpreted, do you call a jew or Christian who fails to obey the murderous instructions of Leviticus and Deuteronomy ‘a bad jew’ or ‘a bad Christian’? No of course not, you respect the fact that it is for him to decide how he wishes to interpret his holy book and the teachings therein, if those murderous instructions are interpreted as being only relevant to a particular time and place which is not the modern world then that is good.

Why not show muslims who do the same thing with their texts the courtesy of the same treatment rather than saying they are just ‘bad muslims’?

a) cousin marriages are far more likely to produce children with genetic defects who will not then go on to breed so it is useless as a tactic for demographic domination, marriages to non-cousins would be far more effective and b) this is only a custom in some conservative and barely literate rural pakistani communities that has been transplanted to the west, it has nothing to do with religion as is clearly demonstrated by the fact that forced cousin marriages do not occur in most of the muslim world from Morocco to Malaysia.

oh jonesy, can you deny that they try to bring their extended family?

can you deny that having polygamous families (illegal to all but permitted to muslims) with multiple wives breeding multiple children can ALTER the demographic a lot more than normal immigration?

how many polygamous families there are the in the UK? which cult they are for the most part?

are they allowed to keep on practicing the ILLEGAL act of polygamous marriage just because of their cult?

do you know any british non muslim who can freely practice polygamy?

and thinking about theories is what shares the human brains from the animal.

You are not even capable of making 1+1=2

can you bring an example of a single muslim majority country where non-muslims are treated like equal citizens?

It would appear that jonesy55 has balked.
Once he invoked “Hitlerian anti-semitism”, it was supposed to end the discussion in his favor.

Having thrown his best pitch and had it knocked over the fence and out of the park by the concrete facts of Islamic doctrine,(and my refusal to be cowed by his measuring me for jackboots), he chooses to ignore the next batter at the plate and instead quibble nonsense about the incidence of consanguinous marriages he ascribes to backward and illiterate Pakistani villagers.

So jonesy55 is standing there on the mound, playing with the rosin bag, with no other pitch in his repertoire, hoping desperately that the manager will send in a relief pitcher for him.

Hey jonesy55, Jews are not Muslims. They never were and they never will be. Judaism isn’t an expansionist faith. In fact, of the Jews I’ve known and have asked about it, they rather discourage conversion.

Jews have never been a territorially expansionist people, either, (unless you count Israel…a plot of land about the size of Kern County, California).

Contrast this with the expansion of Islam by conquest and conversion, and that knocks your shopworn cliche into a cocked yarmulke.

jonesy, do not talk about theology and sacred scriptures if you do not know them

it was possible to “interpret” the bible and adapt it to modern times because the bible is “inspired by god and WRITTEN by men”

the key word is WRITTEN by men.

the koran (any website about the koran will tell you that) is instead the LITERAL word of god that cannot be changed by time or people.

If you do not understand this basic and easy difference there is no point in discussing.

Any other person who posts here is quite educated. You are pretty ignorant and driven by your marxist bleeding heart drugged by political correctnes.

Still wait for you to bring just ONE example of a muslim country where muslims and non muslims are living together with equal rights and feel free to explain what makes you think that in western countries we won’t be subjected to a muslim majority that will treat us the same way.

Yes, as I said in my first post, the two forms of prejudice and hatred are not identical and muslims are not in the same vulnerable position as jews.

But as I also said, this does not mean that there are not similarities especially in the most virulent and extreme forms of anti-islamomania.

Sorry I didn’t make specific reply to your post 32, there didn’t seem much to reply to. You want to nuke half the world because you think that some of the people there are out to get you, that says it all really, I need add nothing further.

“the koran (any website about the koran will tell you that) is instead the LITERAL word of god that cannot be changed by time or people.”

Well, the teachings of islam clearly are open to interpretation as we see from the Sunni-Shia split, the various contradictory traditions of islamic jurisprudence and the many different forms that Islamic practice has taken over the centuries. Your argument is nice in theory but in practice the world does not work as you claim.

No western country is going to be majority muslim for a very long time to come if ever so your point is purely hypothetical.

However, you have mentioned on many occasions that a majority muslim country would automatically apply dhimmi status and impose the jizya on non-muslims, how many muslim countries today do this? The influence of strict interpretations of sharia law in most of the muslim world has actually diminished over the last couple of centuries.

“Well, the teachings of islam clearly are open to interpretation as we see from the Sunni-Shia split”

as a matter of fact they call each other heretic, they stay together when they have a common enemy (the infidel) otherwise, in ANY muslim country with both you always see the sunni vs the shia.

“No western country is going to be majority muslim for a very long time to come if ever so your point is purely hypothetical. ”

nice way to skip the subject, here’s my example, LEBANON, once it was christian majority and it was the switzerland of the middle east, then the 40% muslims became majority and lebanon is like any other muslim state.

“However, you have mentioned on many occasions that a majority muslim country would automatically apply dhimmi status and impose the jizya on non-muslims, how many muslim countries today do this? ”

every single muslim majority country either never signed the universal declaration of human rights (the same one western countries signed) or signed the CAIRO declaration of human rights where it’s stated that every sentence is valid unless in contrast with sharia law.

Sharia law de facto states the inequality between muslim and non-muslim, de facto legitimizing muslim suprematism.

The application of sharia laws or incorporation of sharia laws into the body of laws has instead INCREASED.

Thanks to petrodollars and PC dhimmi west and press the situation of non-muslims in any muslim country has degenerated. Malaysia and indonesia are enforcing more discrimination AS WE SPEAK.

Your posts as usual are full of lies that you cannot back up with facts.

The simple fact that you say the we are not in danger because there won’t be a muslim majority anytime soon, underlines that you admit that there is a problem when there is a muslim majority.

I see you have no problem with muslim suprematism, I guess you had no problem with aryan suprematism too.

But having vague and varying forms of discrimination, as unpleasant as that may be, is NOT the same as dhimmi status and the jizya which are quite clearly described and laid out in muslim scripture as you have pointed out.

The fact that muslims and muslim ruled countries do not apply this system in modern times clearly shows that there is room for manoeuvre and that your theory that islamic scripture can and will only ever be interpreted in one fixed literal sense by muslims is false.

Also your claim that Sunni and Shia will always stick together when faced with the infidel is obviously false, you only have to look at the situation in Iraq where Sunni and Shia have been at each others throats depsite the ‘great satan’ actually being there at the time.

Nice nazi jibe btw, how’s the fingerprinting of gypsies going at the moment in your country?

Why do you not see the U.S. sending in our Navy to rescue and protect the Arabian Tankers? The Arabs have enough money to pay for their own protection. Pay the U.S. or give us some oil for protection? Hardly; Infidels/mushrikun, have no future with Islamic entities; We’d be ultimately aiding the enemy. Clearly their philosophy also.

then i wish that you experience as soon as possible vague and varying forms of discrimination. But coming from the UK, you already are and you’re too stupid to realize it.

Dhimmi status is an inferior status and this happens in any muslim country and the jyza is the constant flow of cash that comes from various places and benefits only the muslim community.

Christian churches in muslim countries cannot even be repaired and fixed with PRIVATE MONEY.

Actual jyza is present in palestine, iraq under the form of ransom money to small shops.

“The fact that muslims and muslim ruled countries do not apply this system in modern times”

evidence proves you wrong

“your theory that islamic scripture can and will only ever be interpreted in one fixed literal sense by muslims is false”

show me a successful muslim reformer, please, otherwise eat your crow

“Also your claim that Sunni and Shia will always stick together when faced with the infidel is obviously false, you only have to look at the situation in Iraq where Sunni and Shia have been at each others throats depsite the ‘great satan’ actually being there at the time.”

this is the peculiar situation left by your hero saddam, he was a sunni and persecuted the shia that were supported by iran. When he fell, it was payback time.

And they did unite to murder some peace corps that were there. 5000 deads among western soldiers is the evidence of that

i bet you think you are so smart and witty, if I request a passport and visa to the usa I have to leave my fingertips. Does this make the USA a nazi state?

Please go on making an a$$ of yourself, you are a british form of cheap entertainment.

BTW, there are no fingertips taken of rom people in my country, that is because not all the propaganda that shows up in your fascist press turns out to become reality, unlike your laws to promote poligamy among muslims and forbid it for the rest of the population.

Pleaaaaaaaaaaaase! In Judaism there is more than one prophet and the list is not closed, thus if you are a believer you accept the idea of God deciding that the old rules have exceeded their usefulness. Also, the Old Testament is basically a history book with some hygiene/epidemic control precepts inserted (both for poeople and for cattle: like the near-obsessive attention paid to quarantining people and cattle who have suspicious sores) and relatively light on the moral side except for Ten Commandments. In Islam while paying lip service to Jewish Prophets and to Christ their teachings have been modified to coincide with Muhammad’s so there is only one prophet and, except in the tiny sect named Ahmadists, there will be none more. God is denied the right to send other prophets for further revelations. In fact the Coran is supposed to have been uncreated, coexisting with God since before the beginning of times so it is not even clear that God himself can alter the message.

In Judaism, the moral rules are not in the Bible proper but on a tradition that, in Christ time was still oral and it allows changes: eg it was only after 1000AD that poligamy was banned. Also there is no personality cult about Moses or Abraham. In Islam, Muhammad is the perfect man to be imitated in everything. An old Algerian derided islamists saying: “they wear same clothes as the Propjet’s despite Algeria being colder than Arabia, the Prophet wore khol to protect his eyelids from desert’s sun so they wear khol despite never having seen the desert, if prophet had worn a stick in his ass, they would wear one in theirs”.

In Christianism Jesus is also last of prophets but there are four Gospels and while they basically coincide on Christ’s teachings it allows interpretation. But the lmost important is that Christ’s rules are merely moral, very difficult to follow and he was completely unconcerned about politics or every day life so there was both a need to adapt Christ precepts to real world and a vast space unruled by religion. Coran is a lot more detailed and when solution is not directly in it there is the life of Muhammad, the perfect man, object of a personaliity cult who exceeds Stalin’s and Kim Kong Il’s, and when life of Muhammad still reveals nothing then there are the thousand of Muhammad’s sayings (Haddiths) given that Muhammad is right on everything. And there is a haddith for everything, including how you must clean yourself in the toilets.

However you have cheated and sidestepped the question. The question was about not about Islam’s mutability but about its intrinsic nature, about its basic ideas and ideals (ie the guidelines for developping futher ideas) and these, from the unquestionable Coran and from the equally unquestionable Muhammad’s example are:

Muslims have the right and duty to conquer infidels, anything is valid for expanding Islam (cf Muhammad breaking treaties, the practice of Takiyah and the lack of blame for the worst of atrocities as long as they work), Infidel subjects (dhimmis) have no right to legitimate defense and the sentence for their death is only half the one for the death of a Muslim. In other words Muslims are the master race. Finally, there is no sin or crime heinous enough for God not forgiving it if the sinner goes to Jihad (and no, Crusaders didn’t benefit from such unconditional pardon). And then there is the example of Muhammad’s life, the man to be imitated in everything, who had intercourse with a woman whose father and husband bodies have been killed in the preceding minutes and gets a fraction of the booty, women included, each time Muslims are victorious.

That is why except for Ahmadism (who admits prophets after Muhammad, whose prophets teachings are completely opposite to Muhammad’s and who are not accepted as Muslims by 99% of other Muslims), warfare is intrinsic to Islam and the closer to real, unadulterated Islam, the more violent.

Typical of the Germans (I lived there for 3 years). They still struggle with a national identity under the yoke of eternal guilt. The Germans F’d up their nation with liberal immigration policies allowing countless Muslim Turks in as laborers and eventually they will out populate the native Germans, who beam with pride at their own zero population growth while mommy and daddy Muslim shop at Wertkauf or Hertie with 5-6 little Muslims in tow.

WAKE UP WORLD…the Caliphate intends to embrace you all in the arms of the “religion of peace”!!

Faisal,
Aside from your skewed view of online political debate, consider this: at least in the Western world we work out most of our “hate” on keyboards, as opposed to actual, real-time honor killings, suicide bombings, beheadings, forced marriages and the like.

Guy Lusignan said: “Especially Kuentzel, who belongs to the leftwing extremists “Antideutsche Kommunisten” has an interest to denounce and defame well known scientists as Benz for political reasons. It’s a shame that Broder is supporting such a crook.”

You are not very perceptive, are you? Are you REALLY buying Broder’s “conservative” rhetoric? He is, like Küntzel, an anti-German leftist, just too arrogant to openly admit it.

That does not mean that they both, Küntzel and Broder, are not right about a pseudo-academic clown like Benz.

martini-henry said: “Typical of the Germans (I lived there for 3 years). They still struggle with a national identity under the yoke of eternal guilt. The Germans F’d up their nation with liberal immigration policies allowing countless Muslim Turks in as laborers and eventually they will out populate the native Germans, who beam with pride at their own zero population growth while mommy and daddy Muslim shop at Wertkauf or Hertie with 5-6 little Muslims in tow.”

I think you are misinterpreting the German agenda. The Germans are counting on a long and “fruitful” cooperation with the Muslim world. (Remember Hadj Amin Al Husseini, the “Grand Mufti” of Jerusalem?) Thus, they can be sure that the Jews will suffer, yet appear as tolerant, multi-culti-inclined Gutmenschen who have “learned from their past”. The love for alien cultures stops right there where they don’t embrace any hatred of Jews, Israel or America.